How can it be the same?

Originally posted by knightmeister
So here's the rub...

You are saying that these things do not belong to the category of the subjective world and human perceptions and also they do not belong to the real world of physical external reality. They are neither objective nor subjective. neither real or imaginary? (DUH? ) so where are they then? You need to create some third category to l but you know unconsciously what saying 'they are real' might mean for your world view.

I don't find the objective/subjective distinction useful in the sense in which most philosophers use it. I am not talking about any kind of "third category".

Things like beauty and love are perfectly real. Beauty, for example, would continue to exist in the world even if all human beings were exterminated. But it is also (obviously) true true to say that if humans had never existed then we would never have had a concept of "beauty", used it in true sentences, etc.

Remember also that just because beauty is a real property that doesn't mean it is some extra property, such that we could take away all other properties and be left with pure unadulterated beauty. (Wittgenstein)

This is not a metaphysical issue and there are not two options. The word beauty describes properties of objects. Instead of telling me what I'm saying, just tell me - where's the dilemma? What (briefly and exactly) are the two incompatible propositions I MUST choose between?

Originally posted by bbarr
Then the injunction ought to read "love your neighbor, and if you're not sure how to go about doing that, then love your neighbor as you would yourself", oughtn't it?

How quaintly ironic that the very "injunction" you attempt to 'fix' for God would have come about in the manner in which it did. After the Sadducees failed in their attempts to snare the Lord Jesus Christ on an area of knowledge wherein they considered themselves superior, the Pharisees--- instead of cheering at their nemesis' undoing at His hands--- decided to give it a go themselves.

They sent their travelling squad to trip Him up regarding which commandment He thought should be considered the most important. His response was a two-parter, and the "injunction" you claim requires fixing was the second of the two. Jesus declared that the entire Law could be summed up within two commands, namely, love the Lord your God and your neighbor as yourself.

Instead of revealing to Him and the crowd their vast superiority of biblical (or relational) knowldege, the Pharisees merely showed everyone how divorced from reality they truly were. Feels familiar, I'm sure.

Bear in mind, however, that the Lord Jesus Christ was not speaking to a group of uninformed citizenry blindly stumbling about for general rules by which to live. He was speaking to a group of the most informed religious people of the day. They knew the Law, and it was assumed that they should have been in their right minds, i.e., no mental abnormalities which would have rendered the self as a poor starting point.

To assume that one can 'fix' the words of the Lord Jesus Christ by adding two self-cancelling phrases which, in essence, neither contribute nor reduce the basic idea of the original statment is (more) silly arrogance.

Originally posted by dottewell
I don't find the objective/subjective distinction useful in the sense in which most philosophers use it. I am not talking about any kind of "third category".

Things like beauty and love are perfectly real. Beauty, for example, would continue to exist in the world even if all human beings were exterminated. But it is also (obviously) true true to say tha ...[text shortened]... What (briefly and exactly) are the two incompatible propositions I MUST choose between?

Do you also apply the same reasoning to love or morality?

The two options are not imcompatible . You can say that beauty is subjective and objective , just as you can say green is subjectively perceived but is also an objective property of protons and wavelengths of light. What you cannot say is that it is neither because there are no other catagories of existence.It has to be one or other or both , but it can't be none.
What you seem to shrink back from is actually saying beauty and love are actual things because you have no idea what you can refer to say they exist. If I said that God 'kind of existed' and was more than a concept but not what you might call 'real' , a sort of 'property' . you would quite rightly wonder what I was on about.

Green exists , it is a wavelength of light , it is therefore a property of reality and not a matter of opinion. Whether green is beautiful or not is not a property but an opinion that exists in human perception. If I think green is uglier/or more beautiful than red or vice versa there is nothing within the property of reality of redness that you can refer to to say that I am wrong or right, therefore it is an opinion and nothing more. To say ugliness/beauty is a property you must say what physical properties it has , just as if you say something is green you can refer to protons , spectograms and wavelengths.

If you say that human perceptions , value , moral law etc and love are entities that exist in the external world and are as real as gravity or wavelengths of light (your analogy) then you need to realise the vast implications of what you are saying. This is the dilemma you have yet to realise.

Originally posted by dottewell
I don't find the objective/subjective distinction useful in the sense in which most philosophers use it. I am not talking about any kind of "third category".

Things like beauty and love are perfectly real. Beauty, for example, would continue to exist in the world even if all human beings were exterminated. But it is also (obviously) true true to say tha ...[text shortened]... What (briefly and exactly) are the two incompatible propositions I MUST choose between?

PART 2

Simple test 1 . I think a Crimson sunset is revolting and disgusting , it's the ugliest thing in the world...prove me wrong!

You might say everyone who ever lived would disagree with me , but that's still only opinion.

Simple test 2 I think a crimson sunset is actually green and the rest of you are all colour blind! Prove me wrong!

Have a think and see if you can spot the difference.

Originally posted by knightmeister
PART 2

Simple test 1 . I think a Crimson sunset is revolting and disgusting , it's the ugliest thing in the world...prove me wrong!

You might say everyone who ever lived would disagree with me , but that's still only opinion.

Simple test 2 I think a crimson sunset is actually green and the rest of you are all colour blind! Prove me wrong!

Have a think and see if you can spot the difference.

(a) A question of fact does not have to be provable, either way. And the fact I can't prove you wrong does not mean you are not wrong, of course. Many of the things I think are beautiful may in fact be ugly (I have made this mistake with women, usually while drunk). Hopefully if we saw such a sunset I would be able to point out qualities that made it beautiful and that you would appreciate. Of course you may just be unable to appreciate beauty. At any rate, what do you think? As a Christian who believes in beauty, do you actually find such things beautiful? Do you find everything equally beautiful, because everything is a reflection/memory of God? A dead baby, for instance? And if not, how does this mysterious "God-beauty" work?

I assume you are aware of Kant's point regarding our arguments/disagreements about beauty presupposing there is a fact of the matter, which I have always thought of as an interesting and powerful one.

(b) If you think a crimson sunset is green, you are in fact colour blind. If I heard you say such a thing, and thought you meant it, I would send you to the doctor. Or the funny-farm. You do realise we are able to recognise and diagnose colour-blindness to a high degree of accuracy, don't you?

And please, don't try to patronise me. It's rude, ignorant and (let's face it) you don't know the first thing about me.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Do you also apply the same reasoning to love or morality?

The two options are not imcompatible . You can say that beauty is subjective and objective , just as you can say green is subjectively perceived but is also an objective property of protons and wavelengths of light. What you cannot say is that it is neither because there are no other catagori he vast implications of what you are saying. This is the dilemma you have yet to realise.

Since you are having such a hard time spelling out your supposed "atheist's dilemma", I'll do it for you:

Either (A) all properties are scientifically verifiable and there is no "real" love or beauty, or (B) God exists.

Correct?

I have said, several times, that beauty is a real property. I would add that value judgements can be true or false, and that there are true moral facts about the world. I can't be much clearer. It's not my fault you have such a black/white (and wrong) idea of what it means to "exist". The mere fact beauty is a different kind of property than greenness (eg in that it cannot be represented as a wavelength) is not a problem for me. It seems your "dilemma" is based on an absurdly reductionist position.

As I said, I don't think the division between "objective" and "subjective" makes any sense, in the way that you mean it.

Originally posted by knightmeister
However , do atheists see existence as 1) having a basically moral grounding (morality being an actual reality) or do they see existence as basically 2) ammoral or neutral upon which we place human constructs and meaning.

If its 1) then it takes some explaining if it's 2) then all morals have to be ultimately relative because there is no ultimate ...[text shortened]... law of gravity , it exists. I'm clear about morality being objective. Make yourself clear too.

What does it mean to say that existence has a basically moral grounding? Perhaps what you mean to ask is this:

"Do atheists think that there are moral facts?"

If so, then the answer is "some do and some don't". It is certainly the case that nothing about atheism commits one to a view about the nature of morality other than that morality can't depend upon God in any sense.

If your next question is this:

"Do those atheists who think there are moral facts also think that moral facts supervene on facts about the world that are not subjective (i.e., not facts about what people believe, desire, and so on)?"

Then the answer is, again, "some atheists do and some don't."

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
How quaintly ironic that the very "injunction" you attempt to 'fix' for God would have come about in the manner in which it did. After the Sadducees failed in their attempts to snare the Lord Jesus Christ on an area of knowledge wherein they considered themselves superior, the Pharisees--- instead of cheering at their nemesis' undoing at His hands--- deci ntribute nor reduce the basic idea of the original statment is (more) silly arrogance.

What the hell are you on about? My claim is simple: The injunction as I've formulated it above is superior than the injunction as originally formulated. If you have an objection to that claim, then present it. If you want to claim that the injunction as I've formulated it above is merely a clearer expression of what was originally intended by the original injunction, then, as I said previously to Herr Dr., "fair enough".

Nothing in the injunction that I've formulated above is "self-cancelling", and the formulation above is clearly superior to the original injunction (interpreted as stated, prior to exegesis) because it takes the "as yourself" clause as merely heuristic; a deliberative device to be used in the absence of sufficient information, rather than as a principle of right action in general.

Originally posted by bbarr
What the hell are you on about? My claim is simple: The injunction as I've formulated it above is superior than the injunction as originally formulated. If you have an objection to that claim, then present it. If you want to claim that the injunction as I've formulated it above is merely a clearer expression of what was originally intended by the or ...[text shortened]... sence of sufficient information, rather than as a principle of right action in general.

What the hell are you on about?
I dunno, just feeling especially grouchy tonight. Maybe that time of the month?

The injunction as I've formulated it above is superior than the injunction as originally formulated. If you have an objection to that claim, then present it.
My objection was presented: the fomulated injunction was based on inferior information. We can't just pluck a word or three out of a passage, give it a nifty sounding label such as "injunction" or whatnot, assemble an extreme makeover team to renovate it, and then feel comfortable enough with our efforts in order to stand back and congratulate ourselves on a job needing done, well done.

When this passage is viewed in its proper setting with an eye on its intended audience, its meaning and proper application yield far more powerful results than the treatment it has received here and other places.

Nothing in the injunction that I've formulated above is "self-cancelling"...
Admittedly poorly worded by me in my periodic grumpiness. I was thinking along these lines:
(1+1-1)+1+1=2
In my mind, to include the first two phrases, plus the word "then" is equivalent to the parenthetical portion of the above formula: superflous and unnecessary.

because it takes the "as yourself" clause as merely heuristic; a deliberative device to be used in the absence of sufficient information, rather than as a principle of right action in general.
Prior to exegesis, yes. But we may as well say prior to reading it, for the lack of thought that went into an unnecessary renovation to a perfectly valid and (where properly exercised) perpetually applicable statement uttered by the Lord Jesus Christ.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]What the hell are you on about?
I dunno, just feeling especially grouchy tonight. Maybe that time of the month?

The injunction as I've formulated it above is superior than the injunction as originally formulated. If you have an objection to that claim, then present it.
My objection was presented: the fomulated injunction was based on i roperly exercised) perpetually applicable statement uttered by the Lord Jesus Christ.[/b]

What part of "fair enough" don't you understand? If that was the original intention, then I have no problem with the intended content of the injunction. But the original injunction reads as though it is providing a sole principle for moral deliberation, not a priniciple plus an independent heuristic device to be used when the necessary information about how to properly love one's neighbor is absent. If you're inclined, I'd love to see independent textual support for construing the original injunction as a composite of a moral principle and a heuristic device.

Originally posted by bbarr
What part of "fair enough" don't you understand? If that was the original intention, then I have no problem with the intended content of the injunction. But the original injunction reads as though it is providing a sole principle for moral deliberation, not a priniciple plus an independent heuristic device to be used when the necessary information about how ...[text shortened]... truing the original injunction as a composite of a moral principle and a heuristic device.

But the original injunction reads as though it is providing a sole principle for moral deliberation, not a priniciple plus an independent heuristic device to be used when the necessary information about how to properly love one's neighbor is absent.
I'm not sure how a reading of the passage could yield that take on it. Obviously some history is required to understand a little about the people to whom Jesus was speaking, but with a basic and unsophisticated understanding of the narrative, it is apparent that the learned Pharisees are out for a power struggle, not in search of guiding moral principles.

If you're inclined, I'd love to see independent textual support for construing the original injunction as a composite of a moral principle and a heuristic device.
Two questions:
Independent of whom?
How would this be possible without a proper exegetical treatment first?

Originally posted by dottewell
Since you are having such a hard time spelling out your supposed "atheist's dilemma", I'll do it for you:

Either (A) all properties are scientifically verifiable and there is no "real" love or beauty, or (B) God exists.

Correct?

I have said, several times, that beauty is a real property. I would add that value judgements can be true or false, and ...[text shortened]... ween "objective" and "subjective" makes any sense, in the way that you mean it.

'Greenness' is not just a property because it can be represented as a wavelength it can also be measured and it made of something that exists called protons.

My difficulty with your position is not that you say beauty is an actual property or that there are moral facts. You are quite clear on this , crystal clear. HOWEVER , you do not say what these 'facts' are , how they exist (other than in perception) , or give any clue at all as to how they might be verified or whether they could hypothetically be verified.

Simple test 3 Hypothetically , in theory, if men invented a 'beautyometer' that could measure beauty , do you believe that we would infact be able to measure beauty (or moral facts for that matter) and be able to work out whose appreciation of beauty/moral facts was the most accurate.

If yes , then beauty exists and is of the same category as protons (ie they exist in the external universe)

If you answer no (even hypothetically) then beauty /moral facts can never be more than either opinion , or a useful concept with widespread agreement.

If you say yes/no , which I am expecting you to, then you are creating a new category of existence which is somewhere between the internal world of men and the external world of the universe. But since you know of no such category you have to wander around between the two. You do not have to say God exists at this point but you do have to do something pretty wierd with your logic instead.

The Christian position to use the example of moral facts , is that moral facts are exactly what they are , moral facts. They are as real as protons and have the substance and actual reality of God behind them. Infact , these moral facts , were around before protons and are rooted in the love or substance of God.One day our morality will infact be measured against these moral facts (God's Holiness) and be found to be accurate/inaccurate.

It's actually not a dilemma you have , just a decision really . External fact or internal perception or both , but not neither , there is no such third category and you have yet to describe it.

Have you ever wondered why these moral facts and this sense of beauty seem SO self evident to you , that you are SO sure about them that they seem certain to exist to you , that you are unable to consign them to a life in purely human perception? Why do you want to project your internal perception onto reality and call it a 'property'? At least be honest enough to call it faith like we do.

Simple Test 3 - Do you believe that Jesus was in touch with what you call moral facts and should be listened to , if you don't think he should be listened to because he was not in touch , then who is , and who decides who is in touch and out of touch except by faith?

Originally posted by knightmeister
'Greenness' is not just a property because it can be represented as a wavelength it can also be measured and it made of something that exists called protons.

My difficulty with your position is not that you say beauty is an actual property or that there are moral facts. You are quite clear on this , crystal clear. HOWEVER , you do not say what thes ...[text shortened]... uch , then who is , and who decides who is in touch and out of touch except by faith?

A "new category of existence"? Come on, it's not as strange as all that, as dottewell's example of secondary qualities should indicate. You are assuming that, for the atheist, moral facts must either supervene on internal facts about agents or external facts about the world. But greeness doesn't supervene on either internal or external facts. Rather, facts about secondary qualities supervene on facts about the relations between agents with a particular sort of psychology and the primary properties of objects. They are neither completely internal, subjective properties of us, nor are they completely external, objective properties of objects.

Originally posted by bbarr
A "new category of existence"? Come on, it's not as strange as all that, as dottewell's example of secondary qualities should indicate. You are assuming that, for the atheist, moral facts must either supervene on internal facts about agents or external facts about the world. But greeness doesn't supervene on either internal or external facts. Rather, facts ...[text shortened]... ective properties of us, nor are they completely external, objective properties of objects.

Greenness supervenes on the physical properties of the brain and the eyes. Green is an objective property of a wavelength of light, but greenness is an internal property of each individual's brain interpreting the signals sent by the eyes.

It's proven that the light that hits the eyes is then interpreted by the brain, so it should be presumed to supervene on the brain and the eye since there are no other plausible claims supported by science.

Originally posted by bbarr
A "new category of existence"? Come on, it's not as strange as all that, as dottewell's example of secondary qualities should indicate. You are assuming that, for the atheist, moral facts must either supervene on internal facts about agents or external facts about the world. But greeness doesn't supervene on either internal or external facts. Rather, facts ...[text shortened]... ective properties of us, nor are they completely external, objective properties of objects.

The difference between greeness and moral facts in your argument is that greeness is based, founded and rooted in some things that actually exist (ie protons , light wavelengths , and real measurable molecular properties of leaves , optical nerve endings etc). There is no such equivalent to say what moral facts are rooted in in your world view. You can only root them in the subjective , whereas greeness can be rooted and clearly connected to the external world. This is why I say it is a context error. Your argument makes sense in a philosophy book but not when you stand next to an actual tree. You are a vastly better philosopher than me but a terrible phenomenologist.